Challenge of Developing a Multidimensional Ranking Methodology for Higher Education System in the Russian Federation Perfilyeva Olga (NRU HSE International Organizations Research Institute) Project “Development and Approbation of a Template Methodology for National Ranking of Higher Education Institutions” 2011‐2013
1
I. Project background Project “Development and Approbation of a Template Methodology for National Ranking of Higher Education Institutions” 2011‐2013 implemented by National Training Foundation in collaboration with International Organizations Research Institute of the National Research University Higher School of Economics at the request of the Russian Ministry of Education and Science. 2
Project goal
•
• • • •
To develop and approbate a template methodology for ranking of Russian higher education institutions through: comparative analysis of global, national and specialized rankings; national approaches to evaluation of higher education institutions performance public and expert discussions of the draft methodology approbation of the draft methodology processing and discussion of the approbation outcomes consultations with IREG experts
3
20
13
20 1
2
20 1
1
Project tasks Analyzing the Russian approaches (methodologies and indicators) used to evaluate performance of higher education institutions. Conducting a comparative analysis of global, foreign, and specialized rankings; identifying their strengths and weaknesses. Carrying out a comparative analysis of the methodologies and approaches used in international /foreign and Russian practices. Developing a template methodology for national ranking of higher education institutions. Approbation of the developed methodology. Processing the approbation results Organizing public and expert discussions of the approbation results. Consulting with IREG experts to audit the methodology for national ranking of the higher education institutions. Amending the draft methodology in accordance with the results of the discussions. Developing recommendations on the application of the template methodology for national ranking of higher education institutions. Organizing an international conference to discuss the template methodology for national ranking of higher education institutions and the approbation outcomes. 4
II. General approaches to the template methodology for HEIs ranking Key principles: 1.
The methodology should provide reliable information on performance of higher education institutions and their position in rankings.
2.
The methodology should inform users of educational services on diversity of higher education institutions and education programmes providing friendly and easy‐to‐use information
3.
The methodology should facilitate improvement of quality and competitiveness of higher education institutions
4.
The methodology should be a source of valid data for global and regional rankings
5
Key principles The methodology should take into account: 1. Experience and achievements of the Russian higher education institutions in the area 2. Objectives to improve competitiveness and facilitate integration of the Russian higher education institutions into global education and research environment 3. Increasing number of the Russian higher education institutions that participate/will participate in global rankings 4. Pragmatic approach to the methodology: data collected for national ranking should correlate with the data universities provide for global rankings 5. Strengths of quantitative indicators 6. Strengths of global ranking methodologies 6
Methodology for a Comparative Analysis 3 levels of analysis •
1 level: Comparative analysis of methodologies on key selected parameters (target groups, key objectives, areas of evaluation, frequency, method of data collection and processing etc).
•
2 level: Assessing ranking methodologies against Berlin principles on ranking of Higher Education Institutions and the IREG audit criteria
•
3 level: Identifying key quantitative indicators and assessing the indicators against criteria of relevance to the Russian education system development objectives, validity and feasibility of data collection 7
1 level: Comparing methodologies using common parameters Criteria for selection of ranking methodologies: • Rankings in which Russian universities participate or are expected to take part • Most popular rankings, which top listing is perceived as “signal” of universities competitiveness in international education and research • Rankings with methodologies available in open access to ensure transparency and understanding of indicators’ relevance and validity of the obtained results 8
Criteria for selection of ranking methodologies (continued) •
• • •
possibility of assessing ranking methodologies against Berlin principles on ranking Higher Education institutions and IREG audit criteria account of diverse practices of various countries inclusion into analysis of different methodologies feasibility of application for the national HEIs ranking
9
Types of analyzed methodologies (19) Type
Characteristics
Methodologies
Single-dimensional ranking (rankings, league tables)
-Normalizes -Assigns scores - Compares higher education institutions and creates a hierarchical list of HEIs from “best” to “worst” based on composite scores - Uses single aggregate score - User-driven
Shanghai, THE, QS, US News, Leiden, Times, Guardian, Guardian Sp, Time Good Education Guide, Forbes, Financial Times, Bloomberg Business Week, The Economist
Multi-dimensional ranking
- Assesses - Compares - Displays diversity - Does not use aggregate scores - Creates hierarchical lists of higher education institutions
U-multirank, CHE University, CHE Excellence, CHE Employment, CHE Research, Indicators for Mapping and Profiling Internationalization
Classification
- Groups objects with similar characteristics - Describes - Displays horizontal diversity - Considers various activities of higher education institutions
U-Map, Carnegie
10
Position of Russian universities in global rankings
QS
Shanghai
THE
Leiden
US News and World report
Ranking 2011 (500 universities)
Ranking 2011 (400 universities)
Ranking 2011 (500 universities)
Ranking 2011 (400 universities)
St. Petersburg State University - 251
Moscow State University – 77
Moscow State University – 276-300
Moscow State University – 499
Moscow State University – 112
Bauman Moscow State Technical University - 379
St. Petersburg State University – 301 – 400
St. Petersburg State University - 500
St. Petersburg State University – 251
Ranking 2011 (700 universities) Moscow State University - 112
Moscow State Institute of International Relations - 389 Novosibirsk State University - 400 Tomsk State University – 451-500 Ural Federal University – 451-500
St. Petersburg State University – 351-400
Bauman Moscow State Technical University – 379 Moscow State Institute of International Relationships – 389 Novosibirsk State University – 400
Higher School of Economics – 551-600 Tomsk Polytechnic University – 551-600 People’s Friendship University – 551-600
11
Parameters for comparing ranking methodologies 1. 2. 3.
Focus (mission, goal, objectives) Target groups Subject areas (Arts and Humanities, Engineering and Technology, Life Sciences etc.)
4. 5. 6.
Geographical scope Education levels (undergraduate/postgraduate) Ranking methodology: ‐ key principles; ‐ indicators, weights; ‐ procedures for data collection; ‐ data processing methods; ‐ data transformation into ranking. Ranking outcome (league table, multi‐dimensional ranking, clusters of universities).
7. 8. 9.
Criticism and controversy of indicators used in a ranking. Ranking reputation.
12
Single‐dimensional rankings main disadvantages • •
•
• •
Validity: Focus on reputation surveys reduces confidence in procedures, sampling and proceeding the results of global, international and national surveys Relevance: Frequent usage of input indicators instead of output indicators reduces relevance of the applied methodology. Some input indicators raise doubts on their ability to assess quality of universities. (e.g. using income indicators or faculty student ratio to assess quality of teaching and learning, or research citation index to assess quality of research) Methodology: Weights of indicators are criticized. Thus, weights of internationalization indicators are underestimated, though internationalization is a key characteristic of the world class universities. The procedures of weightening indicators as less scientifically grounded are of the main concern for criticism Data availability: Some methodologies assign minimal values to universities, if data is not available, in order to include them into rankings Informativeness: Single‐dimensional ranking methodologies do not assess diversity of HEI systems; teaching quality and research are assessed more frequently than other universities’ functions. Therefore, limited information on HEIs quality is provided to consumers 13
Development of ranking systems
Source: Shin J.Ch., Toutkoushian R.K., Teichler U. (eds.) University Rankings: Theoretical Basis, Methodology and Impacts on Global Higher Education. Springer, 2011. P.14.
14
Regional / National multi‐dimensional rankings: The СНЕ Rankings CHE University Ranking
Target group: Prospective students, students and HEIs Criteria: 1.Teaching and learning 2.Infrastructure 3.Internationalization 4. Labour market 5. HEI reputation (students survey) 6. Research 7. University and Town
CHE Research Ranking
CHE Excellence Ranking
CHE Employability Ranking
Target group: Researchers, academics and research universities Criteria: 1. Third-party funding spent on individual subjects 2. Publications and citations 3. Patents/inventions 4. Number of doctorates
Target group: Undergraduates from European, non-European universities intending to earn a Master’s or PhD degree Criteria 1. Publications and citations 2. Outstanding researchers (only natural sciences) 3. Marie Curie projects (only natural sciences) 4. Student mobility 5. Teaching staff mobility 6. Erasmus-Mundus Master's programmes 7. ERC grants (only natural sciences)
Target Group: Bachelor students, labour market, HEIs Criteria: 1. Methodological skills 2 Soft skills 3. Practical experience 4. Internationality
15
Regional/ National Single‐dimensional rankings: The СНЕ Rankings Quality signals •
•
•
•
Indicators’ balance: The balance of universities’ quality assessment is achieved by using multi‐dimensional indicators. Aggregated indicators are not used. This approach allows universities' comparison by various indicators. Data processing: 70% of all data used for universities’ ranking is collected via on‐line surveys and self‐ evaluations reports. This increases the risk of data falsification. Nevertheless, all collected data is audited to assure reliability and validity. Data is sent to universities’ for final approval. In case of data falsification a university is excluded from ranking. Validity and relevance of indicators The ranking methodology is regularly renewed. The reputation evaluations are replaced by the quantitative data. Responsiveness and Transparency The CHE rankings are highly interactive and consumer‐driven. Consumers are provided with an optional choice to rank or compare universities on the basis of a single indicator or group of indicators. Information on methods of data collection, calculation of indicators’ values and universities’ assessment is available in open access. 16
2 level: Assessing ranking methodologies against Berlin principles and the IREG audit criteria Criteria for assessing ranking methodologies strengths and weaknesses •
Berlin principles on ranking of Higher Education Institutions
•
IREG Ranking Audit Criteria for assessing ranking methodologies
17
Logical framework for assessing ranking methodologies against the IREG audit criteria
Scale for assessment of methodologies against IREG criteria 0 – criterion is not applicable/data is not available 1 – does not comply with the criteria 2 – partially complies with the criteria 3 – fully complies with the criteria 18
Methodology
Basic Approach Type of the Methodology League table Global League table Global League table Global League table Global League table Global League table National League table National League table National League table National League table Specialized League table Specialized League table Specialized Ranking Global Ranking National Ranking National Ranking National Ranking National Classification Regional
CRITERIA Shanghai THE US News Leiden QS Times Guardian Guardian Sp Forbes Financial Times Bloomberg BusinessWeek The Economist U‐multirank CHE University CHE Excellence CHE Employment CHE Research U‐map
1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3
3 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 3
4 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
7 2 3 1 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
8 3 3 1 3 3 2 1 3 3 1 2
9 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3
10 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 1 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3
Transparency Responsiveness 11 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
12 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
13 3 3 1
14 1 2 1
2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 3 3 1 3 3
15 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
16 2 3 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3
Quality Assurance
MEAN 17 18 19 20 TOTAL MEAN 20 COR 1 1 3 41 2,05 2,16 3 2 3 46 2,3 2,42 3 2 3 36 1,8 1,89 3 3 3 42 2,1 2,63 3 2 3 44 2,2 2,32 3 2 2 41 2,05 2,16 3 2 2 42 2,1 2,21 3 2 2 36 1,8 1,89 3 1 2 37 1,85 1,95 2 2 2 43 2,15 2,26 2 3 2 42 2,1 2,21 2 2 2 38 1,9 2,00 3 3 3 50 2,5 2,94 3 2 3 48 2,4 2,82 3 2 3 47 2,35 2,76 3 3 43 2,15 2,69 3 3 45 2,25 2,81 3 3 3 50 2,5 2,94
19
2 level: Assessing ranking methodologies against the IREG audit criteria (20 criteria)
20
2 level: Assessing ranking methodologies against the IREG audit criteria (adjusted criteria) Compliance with the IREG audit criteria
21
Limitations of ranking methodologies (U‐multirank, CHE University) • • • • • •
Resource intensity Lack of comparable data on HEIs performance Complexity of indicators and procedures used for data collection Challenges of ensuring validity of data received from surveys Challenges of ensuring validity and quality of collecting large volume of data Difficulties associated with processing of large volume of data
22 22
3 level of analysis: Assessing the indicators against criteria of relevance to the Russian education system development objectives Identification of similar/repeatable/most frequently used and relevant quantitative indicators Distribution of quantitative indicators to areas of evaluation, including • Research • Teaching and learning • Internationalization • Knowledge transfer • Engagement with regional stakeholders Analysis of the most frequently used quantitative indicators on the merits of • data availability • indicators’ weights Critical assessment of the most frequently used quantitative indicators against criteria of relevance to the Russian education system development objectives, validity, feasibility of data collection (see the logical framework for assessment of identified indicators in the 23 next slide)
Logical framework for assessment of identified indicators for ranking HEIs methodology
Area of evaluation
Indicator
Relevance to the Russian higher education system development objectives
Validity
Availabi lity
Relevance
Relevance to the IREG audit criteria
Relevance to the methodolog y
Research. Input indicators Research. Output indicators Teaching and learning. Input indicators Teaching and learning. Output indicators Internationalization. Input indicators Internationalization. Output indicators Employment/salary Knowledge transfer. Input indicators Knowledge transfer. Output indicators Engagement with regional stakeholders. Input indicators Engagement with regional stakeholders. Output indicators Gender balance Student profile
24
Experts’ assessments results 4 groups of indicators identified Group ‘A’ «Core indicators» Comply with the criteria of: relevance to the Russian higher education system development objectives, relevance to the methodology validity, availability, relevance Some indicators were included on recommendations of experts though they do not fully comply with some of the above criteria Group ‘B’ Comply with the criteria of: relevance to the Russian higher education system development objectives relevance to the methodology Do not comply with the criteria of validity, availability, relevance Group ‘C’ indicators
Do not comply with the criteria of: relevance to the Russian higher education system development objectives, relevance to the methodology validity, availability, relevance Group ‘D’ indicators
Additional indicators recommended by experts 25
Experts’ assessments results Group “A” Research Relevance to the Russian higher education system development objectives Indicator
Validity
Availability
Relevance
Relevance to the methodology
Expenditure on research
2,38
2,13
2,50
2,63
2,50
Ratio of academic staff with PhD to the total number of academic staff
2,50
2,50
2,88
2,50
2,50
Number of citations per academic staff (full-time equivalent) (Russian e-library)
2,63
1,75
2,63
2,25
2,25
Web of Science)
2,63
1,75
2,63
2,13
2,25
Number of citations per publication
2,00
2,00
2,25
2,25
2,00
Field-normalized citations score
2,25
2,25
2,25
2,38
2,38
Number of publications per academic staff (full-time equivalent) (Scopus, Web of Science)
2,38
2,00
2,75
2,50
2,38
Number of publications per academic staff (full-time equivalent) (Russian elibrary)*
2,38
2,00
2,63
2,50
2,25
Research income ratio
2,50
2,13
2,25
2,50
2,63
Number of research grants won (Russian Humanitarian Fund, Russian Foundation for Basic Research)
2,75
2,88
2,88
2,63
2,63
Number of citations per academic staff (full-time equivalent) (Scopus,
Experts’ assessments results Group “A” Research Expenditure on research
Ratio of academic staf f with PhD to the total number of academic staf f
2,80
Number of citations per academic staf f (f ulltime equiv alent) (Russian e-library ) 2,50
Number of citations per academic staf f (f ulltime equiv alent) (Scopus, Web of Science) Number of citations per publication
2,20 Field-normalized citations score
Number of publications per academic staf f (f ull-time equiv alent) (Scopus, Web of Science) Number of publications per academic staf f (f ull-time equiv alent) (Russian e-library )*
1,90
Research income
1,60 Relev ance f or Russian higher education dev elopment objectiv es
Validity
Av ailability
Relev ance
Relev ance to the methodology
Number of research grants won (Russian Humanitarian Fund, Russian Foundation f or Basic Research)
27
Experts’ assessments results Group “B” Research Relevance to the Russian higher education system development objectives
Indicator
Validity
Availability
Relevance
Relevance to the methodology
Proportion of full-time students employed to conduct research 2,50
1,50
1,63
2,25
2,13
2,70 2,50 2,30 2,10
Proportion of full-time students employed to conduct research
1,90 1,70 1,50 1,30 1,10 0,90
Relevance to the Russian higher education development objectives
Validity
Availability
Relevance
Relevance to the methodology
28
Experts’ assessments results Group “A” Teaching/learning Relevance to the Russian higher education system development objectives
Indicator
Expenditure on facilities and infrastructure (for education provision)
Proportion of internationally accredited programmes
Validity
Availability
Relevance
Relevance to the methodology
2,38
2,13
2,50
1,88
2,13
2,38
2,38
2,38
2,50
2,50
2,60
Expenditure on f acilities and inf rastructure (f or education prov ision)
2,20
1,80
Proportion of internationally accredited education programmes*
1,40
Relevance for the Russian higher education development objectives
Validity
Availability
Relevance
Relevance for the methodology
29
Experts’ assessments results Group “B” Teaching/learning Relevance to the Russian higher education system development objectives
Indicator
Validity
Availability
Relevance
Relevance to the methodology
Number of interdisciplinary education programmes
2,13
1,38
1,25
1,63
1,75
Proportion of graduates who find graduatelevel employment, or study full-time, within six months after graduation
2,00
1,00
1,50
2,00
1,88
2,50 2,30 2,10 1,90
Num ber of interdisciplinary education program m es
1,70 1,50 1,30 1,10
Proportion of graduates w ho find graduatelevel em ploym ent, or study full-tim e, w ithin six m onths after graduation
0,90 0,70 0,50 Relevance to the Russian higher education developm ent objectives
Validity
Availability
Relevance
Relevance to the m ethodology
30
Experts’ assessments results: Group “D” Teaching/learning
Indicator
Relevance for the Russian higher education system development objectives
Validity
Availability
Relevance to the methodology
Relevance
Number of bachelor students employed to conduct research
1,50
1,00
1,13
1,38
1,50
Proportion of programmes enrolling applicants with high Unified State Examination scores (quality of prospective students) in the previous academic year
1,25
1,75
1,75
1,63
1,50
Proportion of applicants who won national education Olympics in the previous academic year
1,50
2,00
2,13
1,88
1,75
1,50
2,00
2,13
1,50
1,63
Proportion of graduates entered PhD programmes in the previous academic year
2,13
2,00
2,13
2,00
2,13
Ratio of students enrolled on master programmes to students enrolled on bachelor programmes
2,00
2,38
2,25
2,13
2,25
2,38
2,25
2,13
2,25
2,50
1,63
2,00
2,00
2,00
1,50
0
0
0
0
Proportion of students who won prestigious scholarships (President scholarship, Governor scholarship, Mayor scholarship, Potanin Foundation scholarship)
Ratio of graduates from other universities enrolled on master programmes to the total number of students enrolled on master programmes Proportion of academic staff (full-time equivalent) under 35 y.o. who won competitive national awards (President Award, Governor Award, Potanin Foundation Grant) Proportion of academic staff (full-time equivalent) who are members or associate members of the Russian Academy of Sciences
31
0
Experts’ assessments results: Group “D” Teaching/learning 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 Relevance to the Russian higher education development objectives
Validity
Availability
Relevance
Relevance to the methodology
Number of bachelor students employed to conduct research P roportion of programmes enrolling applicants with high Unified State Exam scores (quality of prospective students) in the previous academic year P roportion of applicants who won national education Olympics in the previous academic year P roportion of students who won prestigious scholarships (P resident scholarship, Governor scholarship, Mayor scholarship, P otanin Foundation scholarship) P roportion of graduates entered P hD programmes in the previous academic year Ratio of students enrolled on master programmes to students enrolled on bachalor programmes Ratio of graduates from other universities enrolled on master programmes to the total number of students enrolled on master programmes P roportion of academic staff (full-time equivalent) under 35 y.o. who won compatitive national awards (P resident Award, Governor Award, P otanin Foundation Grant) P roportion of academic staff (full-time equivalent) who are members or associate members of the Russian Academy of Sciences
32
Experts’ assessments results Group “A” Internationalization Relevance to the Russian higher education system development objectives
Indicator
Validity
Availability
Relevance
Relevance to the methodology
Proportion of international students
2,50
2,00
2,38
2,63
2,38
Number of international research grants
2,63
2,75
2,63
2,75
2,75
Income from international sources (teaching, research, contracts with international institutions)
2,13
2,38
2,00
2,38
2,00
3,00 Proportion of international students
2,60
2,20
Number of international research grants
1,80 Income from international sources (teaching, research, contracts with international institutions)
1,40 Relev ance for the Russian higher education dev elopment obj ectiv es
Validity
Av ailability
Relev ance
Relev ance for the methodology
33
Experts’ assessments results Group “B” Internationalization Relevance to the Russian higher education system development objectives
Indicator
Validity
Availability
Relevance
Relevance to the methodology
Proportion of international academic staff
2,38
1,75
2,00
2,38
2,25
Ratio of joint degree programmes to the total number of education programmes
2,50
2,00
1,75
2,13
2,50
2,70
2,50 Proportion of international academ ic staff
2,30
2,10 Ratio of joint degree program m es to the total num ber of education program m es
1,90
1,70
1,50 Relevance to the higher education developm ent objectives
Validity
Availability
Relevance
Relevance to the m ethodology
34
Experts’ assessments results: Group “D” Internationalization Indicator
Ratio of teaching load of international academic staff to the total teaching load of academic staff (full-time equivalent) in the previous academic year
Relevance for the Russian higher education system development objectives
Validity
Availability
Relevance
Relevance to the methodology
2,00
1,75
1,63
1,75
1,88
2,00
2,00
2,13
2,13
2,38
2,00
2,00
2,13
2,13
2,25
1,88
1,75
1,88
2,00
2,25
Proportion of academic staff (full-time equivalent) with PhD degree from international universities
1,88
2,00
1,88
2,13
2,00
Proportion of education programmes developed in collaboration with international partners
2,38
2,00
2,00
2,38
2,63
2,25
2,00
1,88
2,13
2,25
Proportion of students (full-time equivalent) participating in exchange programmes in the previous academic year Proportion of PhD students participating in study placements abroad in the previous academic year Proportion of academic staff (full-time equivalent) invited as lecturers by international universities in the previous academic year
Proportion of students taking programmes developed in collaboration with international partners
35
Experts’ assessments results: Group “D” Internationalization Ratio of teaching load of international academic staff to the total teaching load of academic staff (full-time equivalent) in the previous academic y ear
3
2,8
Proportion of students (full-time equivalent) participating in exchange programmes in the previous academic y ear
2,6
2,4
Proportion of PhD students participating in study placements abroad in the previous academic y ear
2,2
Proportion of academic staff (full-time equivalent) with PhD degree from international universities
2
1,8
Proportion of academic staff (full-time equivalent) invited as lecturers by international universities in the previous academic y ear
1,6
1,4
Proportion of education programmes developed in collaboration with international partners 1,2
1
Relevance for the Russian higher education development objectives
Validity
Availability
Relevance
Relevance to the methodology
Proportion of students taking programmes developed in collaboration with international partners
36
Experts’ assessments results Group “A” Knowledge transfer Relevance to the Russian higher education system development objectives
Indicator
Validity
Availability
Relevance
Relevance to the methodology
Income from business and industry
2,38
2,00
2,13
2,63
2,50
Patents awarded
2,50
2,38
2,25
2,63
2,38
Ratio of CPD students to the total number of students (full-time equivalent)
2,25
2,00
2,13
2,38
2,13
3,00
Income from business and industry 2,60
Patents awarded
2,20
Ratio of CPD students to the total number of students (full-time equivalent)
1,80 Relevance to the Russian higher education developm ent objectives
Validity
Availability
Relevance
Relevance for the m ethodology
37
Experts’ assessments results: Group “D” Knowledge transfer Relevance for the Russian higher education system development objectives
Indicator Income from intellectual property products Number of education programmes implemented by an institution at the request of third party organisations in previous academic year Number of specialists from third party organisations who took CPD courses in the previous academic year
Validity
Availability
Relevance
Relevance to the methodology
2,25
1,88
1,50
2,13
2,25
2,13
1,88
1,88
2,00
2,38
2,25
2,13
2,00
2,38
2,25
2,4
Income from intellectual property products
2,2
2
Number of education programmes implemented by an institution at the request of third party organisations in previous academic year
1,8 1,6
Number of specialists from third party organisations w ho took CPD courses in the previous academic year
1,4
1,2
Relevance for the Russian higher education development objectives
Validity
Availability
Relevance
Relevance to the methodology
38
Experts’ assessments results Group “A” Engagement with regional stakeholders Relevance to the Russian higher education system development objectives
Indicator
Validity
Availability
Relevance
Relevance to the methodology
Proportion of income from local/regional sources
2,13
2,25
2,38
2,50
2,13
Number of students in internships in local enterprises
2,13
2,00
2,25
2,38
2,00
2,60
Proportion of incom e from local/regional sources
2,20
Num ber of students in internships in local enterprises
1,80 Relev ance to the Russian higher education dev elopment obj ectiv es
Validity
Av ailability
Relev ance
Relev ance for the methodology
39
Experts’ assessments results Group “B” Engagement with regional stakeholders Relevance to the Russian higher education system development objectives
Indicator
Validity
Availability
Relevance
Relevance to the methodology
Percentage of graduates working in the region
1,88
1,25
1,25
2,13
1,88
Number of research contracts with regional partners
1,88
1,75
2,00
2,13
1,75
2,5 2,3 Num ber of research contracts w ith regional partners
2,1 1,9 1,7
Percentage of graduates w orking in the region
1,5 1,3 1,1 0,9 Relevance to the Russian higher education
Validity
Availability
Relevance
Relevance to the m ethodology
40
Quantitative indicators’ list based on experts assessment
Research Ratio of expenditure on research to the total institution expenditure in the previous financial year (group “A”) Ratio of academic staff with PhD degrees to the total number of academic staff (group “A”) Number of citations per academic staff (full‐time equivalent) (Russian e‐library) (group “A”) Number of citations per academic staff (full‐time equivalent) (Scopus, Web of Knowledge) (group “A”) Number of citations per publication (group “A”) Field‐normalized citations score (group “A”) 41
Quantitative indicators’ list based on experts assessment
Research Number of publications per academic staff (full‐time equivalent) (Scopus, Web of Science) (group “A”) Number of publications per academic staff (full‐time equivalent) (Russian e‐library) (group “A”) Ratio of research income to the total institution’s income in the previous financial year (group “A”) including: ‐ fundamental research ‐ applied research Number of grants won/total sum of grants won (Russian Humanitarian Fund, Russian Foundation for Basic Research, Bortnik Foundation) in the previous financial year (group “A”) Ratio of bachelor full‐time students employed to conduct research to the total number of bachelor students in the previous academic year (group “B”) 42
Quantitative indicators’ list based on experts assessment
Teaching/learning Expenditure on facilities and infrastructure for education provision in the previous academic year (group “A”) Proportion of internationally accredited education programmes (accredited by an agency with an internationally recognized reputation) (group “A”) Proportion of programmes enrolling students with high Unified State Examination scores (quality of prospective students) in the previous academic year (group “D”) Proportion of applicants who won national education Olympics in the previous academic year (group “D”) Proportion of students who won prestigious scholarships (President scholarship, Governor scholarship, Mayor scholarship, Potanin Foundation scholarship) (group “D”) 43
Quantitative indicators’ list based on experts assessment Teaching/learning Proportion of graduates who find employment by specialization within 1 year after graduation (group “B”) Proportion of graduates entered PhD programmes in the previous academic year (group “D”) Ratio of students enrolled on master programmes to students enrolled on bachelor programmes (group “D”) Ratio of graduates from other universities enrolled on master programmes to the total number of students enrolled on master programmes (group “D”) Proportion of academic staff (full‐time equivalent) under 35 y.o. who won competitive national awards (President Award, Governor Award, Potanin Foundation Grant) (group “D”) Proportion of academic staff (full‐time equivalent) who are members or associate members of the Russian Academy of Sciences (group “D”) 44
Quantitative indicators’ list based on experts assessment
Internationalization Proportion of international students (full‐time equivalent) (group “A”) Number of international grants won in the previous financial year (group “A”) Ratio of income from international sources (teaching, research, contracts with international organisations) to the total institution income in previous financial year (group “A”) Ratio of teaching load of international academic staff to the total teaching load of academic staff (full‐time equivalent) in the previous academic year (group “D”) Proportion of students (full‐time equivalent) participating in exchange programmes in the previous academic year (group “D”) Proportion of PhD students participating in study placements abroad in the previous academic year (group “D”)
45
Quantitative indicators’ list based on experts assessment
Internationalization Proportion of academic staff (full‐time equivalent) invited as lecturers by international universities in the previous academic year (group “D”) Proportion of academic staff (full‐time equivalent) with PhD degree from international universities (group “D”) Proportion of education programmes developed in collaboration with international partners (group “D”) Proportion of students taking programmes developed in collaboration with international partners (group “D”)
46
Quantitative indicators’ list based on experts assessment
Knowledge transfer Proportion of extra‐budgetary funding in the previous financial year (group “A”) from ‐ teaching ‐ research Income from intellectual property products (group “D”) Number of intellectual property items put on accounting balance sheets (group “A”) Number of education programmes implemented by an institution at the request of third party organisations in previous academic year (group “D”) Number of specialists from third party organisations who took CPD courses in the previous academic year (group “D”) 47
Quantitative indicators’ list based on experts assessment
Engagement with regional stakeholders Proportion of income from local/regional sources in previous financial year (group “A”) Number of research contracts with regional partners in previous financial year (group “B”) Percentage of students in internships in local enterprises in previous academic year (group “A”)
48
III. Developing Tool for Approbation a Template Methodology for National Ranking of Higher Education Institutions The decomposition of indicators: o Coding indicators (40 basic indicators prior and 65 after testing procedure) o Extracting subindicators (72 subindicators prior and 86 after testing procedure) (e.g. B1 Ratio of expenditure on research composes of: B1.1 ‐ funds for research allocated from HEI own resources, including: B1.1a – fundamental research B1.1b – applied research B1.2 ‐ total expenditure in the previous financial year (thousand rubles)) o Defining subindicators that are common for basic indicators (e.g. A10 Total number of academic staff in the previous academic year would be common for e.g. B3 Number of citation per academic staff in bibliometrics data bases, or C17 Ratio of students to academic staff) o Composing 5 semantic blocks from 86 (74+12) subindicators (after testing) o Deriving a formula for a basic indicator on the basis of individual 49 subindicators (e.g. B1=∑(B1.1a+B1.1b)/B1.2 )
A Tool for Approbating a Template Methodology for National Ranking of Higher Education Institutions A tool consists of 6 semantic blocks o HEI profile o Students and postgraduate students o Academic, research and other staff o Education programmes o Publications and citations o Budget o Infrastructure (included additionally after testing procedure in order to address the needs of larger consumers’ groups) 50
Testing a Template Methodology for National Ranking of Higher Education Institutions Goal: o Modeling the data collection process (questionnaire filling‐in) o Identifying perception and understanding of indicators by different groups of universities o Clarification the description of indicators on the basis of experts’ feedback o Evaluating data availability for each indicator for different groups of universities on the basis of experts’ feedback o Amending a tool for the approbation o Completing methodological notes on tool’s approbation Participants: HEIs participating in the project expert group (Ural Federal University, Northern Eastern Federal University, Saint Petersburg State Polytechnic University, Saint Petersburg State University, Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk State University, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow City Pedagogical University, Russian New University (Rosnou)) Procedure: o Sending a questionnaire to HEIs participating in testing o Filling in the questionnaire by HEIs o Collecting and proceeding the obtained results o Analyzing the results and experts’ feedback Result: A tool tested by different groups of universities in relation to perception and understanding of indicators and data collection at an institutional level 51
Sampling of higher education institutions for the methodology approbation Sampling is based on the following principles: reflect diversity of the Russian HEI represent various Russian regions consider recent trends in Russian higher education system development take into account experts recommendations 148 higher education institutions (~ 10% from the total number of the Russian HEIs) are included into the sampling
52
Sampling of higher education institutions for the methodology approbation HEI represented in the sampling: Leading Russian universities (Moscow State University, St. Petersburg University) Federal universities (9 universities) National research universities (29 universities) Higher education institutions which received government support of their strategic development programmes (55 HEI) Higher education institutions with best education programmes (catalogue 2011 – 2012 “Best education programmes: innovation Russia) (40 HEI) Higher education institutions recommended by experts (10 HEIs, private) Higher education institutions interested to take part in approbation (3 HEI) 53
Sampling structure Federal District
Classical universitie s
Technical HEI
Pedag. HEI
HEI with Economics/ Law programmes
Medical HEI
Agricul. HEI
TOT A L
1
North-Western
7
8
3
3
1
21
2
Central
9
17
8
5
2
1
40
3
Volga
9
12
3
2
1
2
29
4
Southern
3
4
2
1
5
North-Caucasian
5
1
6
Ural
3
3
7
Siberian
5
7
8
Far-Eastern
6
2
TOTAL
47
54
10
1
7 1
4
3
7 2
1
1 19
17
22 9
7
4
148 54
Lessons from 2011-2012 phase of the project
Multidimensional approach to a template methodology Focus on the needs and interests of at least four main target groups (school graduates and their families, students and post‐ graduate students, higher education institutions, authorities responsible for higher education policy development)
55
IV. Next steps: •
•
•
Approbate the template methodology for ranking of higher education institutions Carry out expert and public discussions on the results of the template methodology approbation Conduct consultations with IREG experts on the results of the template methodology approbation
56
Thank you for your attention!
Olga Perfilyeva
[email protected]
57
